City of Warwick, Raymond McKay seek court ruling on ordinance barring classified employees from public office
Katherine Gregg Journal Political Writer kathyprojo
PROVIDENCE � Potential GOP candidate Raymond McKay and his employer � the City of Warwick � are both seeking a federal court ruling on the legality of a 52-year-old city ordinance that has thwarted his plans.
PROVIDENCE � Potential GOP candidate Raymond McKay and his employer � the City of Warwick � are both seeking a federal court ruling on the legality of a 52-year-old city ordinance that has thwarted his plans to challenge one of the U.S. Senate�s highest-ranking Democrats: Jack Reed.
If it were allowed to stand, McKay�s lawyer says, the ordinance would seriously limit �the likelihood that an individual in public employ would ever be able to run for public office unless they are independently wealthy.�
McKay is a $70,104-a-year telecommunications supervisor and network manager for the city, who heads a conservative group within the state GOP known as the R.I. Republican Assembly.
He is fighting a 1962 city ordinance that bars �classified employees� from running for public office, while allowing them to get involved in political activities such as being part of a Republican or Democratic party committee.
McKay has already been put on notice by the city�s personnel director that running for office will cost him his job.
The city�s March 14 warning letter said: �Please be aware that should you formally declare your candidacy for or take any affirmative action which evidences an overt declaration of candidacy for this federal elective office, the City will deem such action to constitute your abandonment of your employment position with the City and treat such as your resignation.�
In their own court filing in U.S. District Court last week, the city�s lawyers Peter D. Ruggiero and David R. Petrarca Jr. said running for public office �is not a fundamental right,� and the U.S. Supreme Court has held that �a government may, consistent with the First Amendment, place restrictions on the partisan political activities of its employees, including restrictions on the rights of public employees to run for offices.�
Drawing on a past federal court decision, they said, such restrictions are aimed at ensuring that government employees �will neither abuse [their] positions nor neglect [their] duties because of [their] aspirations for higher office.�
But in his own electronic filing with the U.S. District Court late Monday night, McKay�s lawyer Matthew Fabisch, who is also executive counsel to the state GOP, argues that the city ordinance barring �classified employees� from running for political office is, or at least should be, �null and void.�
Fabisch cites inconsistencies between �classified employees,� and �unclassified employees� who include anyone with �substantial policy discretion� such as the city tax assessor and city treasurer, city firefighters and police officers, and all employees of the School Department.
Among the inconsistencies he cites: �While unclassified employees are apparently free to engage in unchecked political involvement, classified employees are subject to a bevy of restrictions on their political engagement.�
As an example, he says: �No classified employee shall during working hours engage to any extent in any form of partisan politics, except that he/she may attend and vote at any party caucus, primary or election held during such hours.� And it carries job forfeiture and criminal penalties.
Fabisch also labeled the ordinance ambiguous, suggesting it was only intended to bar city employees in Warwick from seeking elective office in Warwick.
�The ordinance was not intended to apply to people like Mr. McKay who seek to run for elective positions outside the city�s government,� said Fabisch.
He said an earlier federal case also �strongly suggests that the states are utterly without authority to restrict, or to otherwise impose conditions that reduce the pool of potential candidates for federal office holding beyond that specified in the constitution.�
Fabisch argues: �An ordinance like that in Warwick that requires employees in a position like Mr. McKay to give up their employment if they seek to run for office appreciably limits the likelihood that an individual in public employ would ever be able to run for public office unless they are independently wealthy � thereby unconstitutionally limiting the ability of those in the civil profession of public service from seeking to serve in an elective capacity. �
Through his lawyer, McKay is asking the federal court for both a summary judgment and a permanent injunction barring the city from enforcing its ordinance.
The city is also seeking a summary judgment which, in this case, means both sides agree there is no dispute over the essential facts, and they want U.S. District Judge Mary Lisi to rule on the case as a matter of law.
The next filing date in the case is May 5, when the two sides get to object to each other�s arguments.
The case began on March 17 when McKay sought relief in Kent County Superior Court in Warwick. After the case moved to federal court, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. refused McKay�s bid for a temporary restraining order.
�There is no question whatsoever that this is a proper exercise of the city�s right to regulate its work force,� McConnell said at the time.
�The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently, clearly, and definitively said that local governments can prohibit � employees from running for partisan political offices because governments have sufficiently important interests � such as interest in visibly fair and effective administration and the interest in ensuring that employees are free from both coercion and the prospect of favor from political activity � .�